Clause 8
Hunting Bill
11:00 am
Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
This issue is the core of the Bill. I repeat that I accepted the Minister's approach about utility and cruelty when I heard it outlined the first time, although I imagined that they would be balanced. When I saw the tests for utility and cruelty, I realised that they were wrong. I think the Minister said, ''If it is necessary''. What makes any animal death necessary?
That is why it is so important to amend the utility test, which is covered by some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. Under the current definition of utility, it is clear that foxhunting is not necessary in most of the country. That is because the test is wrong, not because the sport is not necessary. That is why it is important to have a debate in detail on utility as well.
There is common ground between us here, but I suspect that it is my prejudice that fox hunting is all right and good for animal welfare and the Minister's prejudice that it is not. Ultimately, beneath a veneer of intellectual consistency, we may be debating our prejudices. I am genuinely convinced from talking to people for many years that fox hunting is not cruel, if practised properly under the codes of conduct. I believe that Labour Members take a different view.
To answer the Minister's point, under his principles—this golden thread that may be severed when we reach clause stand part—I would not ban anything. Despite my reservations about hare coursing, which are on the record, I would apply properly defined tests to everything. That is why getting the definition right is so important. I listen to the debate because one should listen to such a debate, but I will probably vote against banning hare coursing and deer hunting in the clause stand part debate, despite my reservations. I would like to see the tests applied to those sports as well.
My judgment is that the cruelty test, even as amended by amendment No. 174 would still catch hare coursing, which would probably end up being banned. However, if we seek intellectual consistency, let us do so properly. The amendment would certainly catch bear baiting, cock fighting, dog fighting and other such activities. They would remain banned because they have no utility and obviously cause a great deal of suffering. That is where I part company with those who spoke earlier. The tests should be amended and applied to everything.
I have one final thing to say. I apologise for my lengthy speech, which was not intended. We do not know whether shooting is more humane than hunting. The data are remarkably sparse. That is one of the issues that came out of the Portcullis house hearings. Some so-called experts on the countdown-to-a-ban side were asserting opinion rather than offering fact in the debate and I found that distressing. It is difficult to assert fact on the other side as well. We all have hunches and prejudices. The Middle Way Group is carrying out a proper study on the impact of shooting to ascertain whether it is cruel. It is a shame that the results of its work are not available to inform the Committee.